![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 17 to 41 of 187. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 2, 2003, at 17:21:55
In reply to Re: Lou's response to noa's post-1B » Lou Pilder, posted by fi on April 2, 2003, at 15:42:50
fi,
You wrote,[...how about leaving it now...rather than to persue it...]. In reading the rest of your post, I could not see what it is that I am requested by you to [leave], for I was in a discussion with another poster,{noa}, about an administrative suggestion for improvement, as I recall. You also wrote that,[... and not discuss further...].If you could point out what {it} is, in your post, and what {leaving} could entail, then I could have the opportunuty to resspond accordingly, but with your writing that you are closing your input to this discussion, I have no opportunity to reply.
I am hurt by you making a statement to me and then writing that you will,[...not discuss further...]. I feel that if people are not going to [...continue discussion...] {on [what they wrote]}, that they are {putting the other person down that they are saying that to}, for {I} think that it would be better for the poster that writes that they [will not continue in discussion] to have never wrote what they wrote to the other person at all. If {I} was the moderator of an internet board, {I} would state in my guidlines that posters can not use a phrase like you wrote, ie;[...not discussing further...]{ in [a reply] to another person's {ideas or point of view}, for {I} feel that that type of respons is being disrespectfull to the other poster's point of view.
Lou
Posted by shar on April 3, 2003, at 21:19:57
In reply to clarification clarifications » fayeroe , posted by beardedlady on March 30, 2003, at 14:36:29
>Many of us deal with this issue by not responding to the requests for clarification.
........you're right. It's the only way to fly.
Shar
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 3, 2003, at 22:03:48
In reply to Re: clarification clarifications » beardedlady, posted by shar on April 3, 2003, at 21:19:57
shar,
You wrote,[...you'r right...only way to fly...]. in a response to beadedlady's post that stated that not responding to a request for clarification was a way to deal with a request for clarification.
Are you saying, by the phase that you wrote, that to not respond is the {only way} to deal with the request for clarification? If so, could you clarify why there could not be another way? And if you are saying that the only way to handle a request for clarification is to not respond, then could you clarify why {responding} would be {not} the way to handle a request for clarification? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of what you meant by,[...you'r right, it is the only way to fly...], and have an opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by coral on April 4, 2003, at 5:49:14
In reply to Lou's response to shar's post » shar, posted by Lou Pilder on April 3, 2003, at 22:03:48
Wasn't there some request made by Dr. Hsuing to not put people on the spot, e.g. by requesting that they answer questions, especially when they've indicated they'd prefer not to continue?
Coral
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 8:19:39
In reply to Re: Lou's response to shar's post, posted by coral on April 4, 2003, at 5:49:14
coral,
You wrote,[...wasn't there some request made by Mr. Hsuing to not put people on the spot; eg by requesting that they answer questions especially when they have indicated that they preferrrd not continue...].
Did not Dr. Bob just ask fayroe for clarification about {what she wrote}? It is my understanding that asking for clarification for {what another poster wrote} is not the same as asking a poster to reply to something that they {did not} write, and then to also {continue} to ask for an answer about the same thing in the same post. I remember when a poster here asked me to answer a question about a golf joke. I replied that I was not a golfer. The poster continued to ask for my response to the golf joke and then [there was a warning by a deputy here to cease their requests for an answer to me] , and the poster [continued] anyway with another request for me to [answer the same thing], the golf joke, and then there was a sanction given by the administration. In my requests for clarification, it is a request to the poster about what {they} wrote, not asking them to answer a question about something that they [did not] write. And requests for cliarification help discover what a poster is writing about so that an opportunity could be given to not only the one that asks for clarification, but also to other posters to respond accordingly to the topic that the poster that was asked for clarification innitiated, not to [...put them on the spot...].
Are you saying that when I ask for clarification here that it is my [intention] to {put people {on the spot}?...]. If so, could you give me your rational that caused you to make that conclusion? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 4, 2003, at 11:33:49
In reply to Re: Lou's response to shar's post, posted by coral on April 4, 2003, at 5:49:14
> Wasn't there some request made by Dr. Hsuing to not put people on the spot, e.g. by requesting that they answer questions, especially when they've indicated they'd prefer not to continue?
Well, the idea is not to pressure others. Would you consider that to be pressuring people? It's never easy to know where to draw the line...
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 13:03:55
In reply to Re: putting people on the spot, posted by Dr. Bob on April 4, 2003, at 11:33:49
Dr. Bob,
You wrote,[...its {never} easy to know where to draw the line...].
I disagree with you on that, that you use the word,{never}. There could be, without any problem at all, a way to define this issue by formulating a [test]. This test could be developed by an expert in communication, along with another psychiatrist, and yourself. It would be better to not include the posters here as participants in the group of people that make up the group that will formulate the criteria involved in the test, for they could have a different reason for wanting, let's say, to be able to post statements that have more than one meaning in order to defame or accuse another poster and be allowed to not clarify that statement so that the statement could have the potential to arrouse ill-feelings toward another poster. My coommunication expert calls those type of statements, [hit and run] statements and have the potential to cloud the thought of the discussion at hand when they refuse to clarify [what they wrote] and have the potential to [encourage] animosity toward a poster if the vague staement has the potential to be considered accusitive or defaming to a poster. He also sys that a request for clarification is not the same as {badgering], which is one deffinition of [pressureing]. If you have already concluded that a test for this can not be made, then consider my idea about a test for this (which is forthcomming) and ,perhaps, my input here could be considered constructive.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 13:14:27
In reply to Lou's response to Dr. Bob's post-CL » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 13:03:55
Friends,
I wrote that there could be a test to determine if a post constituted pressuring someone. My first question that I would ask in the test is, [does the post imply that something, such as harm, will result to the poster that the post is written to as a result of not answering the question posed by the questioner?
An example would be:
"If you do not answer my question, I'll..."
Now the moderator could have a sanction, such as deleting the post , or admonishing, if the poster refuses to respond to the request, for it could be considered contemptuous to not answer the moderator, not the other poster, though.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 13:32:26
In reply to Lou's suggestion for a test for [pressuring], posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 13:14:27
Friends,
In {my} test to determine if a post constitutes [pressuring someone], the second question would be:
Does the repeated requests constitute an [ongoing] burden to the other poster?
To determine that, there would have to be a number of repeated question of the same nature to the same poster in the same thread and the poster asked the question never responded to the question. In my contact with this situation, the number of times the question is asked, has been determined as (6) in some situations, and 3 in others, and I have never encounterd (2) as a basis for concluding that one is pressuring anyone, for people have lapses of memory and could easily ask twice the same question without being condemmed to be [pressuring others]. At any rate, no matter what the number would be here, the moderator calls a halt to the questioning and {then}, if the poster asks the question again, in the same post, to the same poster, {then} that would constitute, [pressuring a poster].
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 13:42:07
In reply to Lou's suggestion for a test for [pressuring]-2, posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 13:32:26
Friends,
The third test to determine pressuring a poster would be:
Does the question ask about what the other poster wrote?
If it does, then the question has a ligitmate foundation to be asked, and the accusation of[pressuring a poster] does not apply , for if it did, then the poster that asked the question would be entrapped, for the board is for support and education and when one asks a question [about what was written by the other poster], then the one asking the question is seeking an opportunity to be a constructive discussant for they would like to contribute, and to be a contributor, more infomation could bring out more light on the subject and ,hence, more support or education could be a result and the answer could cause the discussion to florish.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 13:56:46
In reply to Lou's suggestion for a test for [pressuring]-3, posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 13:42:07
Freinds,
The fourth question in my test to determine if a post constitutes,[pressuring a person] would be:
Does the staement that one is aking a question to have the potential to be accusitve or defaming to the poster that it is directed to?
If so, requesting more infomation about what they meant has a proper foundationa and is not [pressuring] the other poster, but simply wanting to make sure that the poster wasn't attempting to arrouse ill-feelings against the poster that they wrote to. If one was not allowed to ask a question to the poster in regards to this situation, then there could be the potential to be accused as [guilty untill proven innocent] by the poster that wrote the statement that one is asking a question to, when we would all like to feel that we are, instead, [innocent untill proven guilty].
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 14:14:00
In reply to Lou's suggestion for a test for [pressuring]-4, posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 13:56:46
Frieds,
The fifth question that I would have in my test to determine if the post constitutes [pressuring a poster], is:
Is the post one that {corrects} another poster in regards to what the other poster wrote to them. If so, there is a valid foundation to ask a question, for misinfomation could cause the thread to decline and it is better for one to ask about what the other poster wrote , if misinfomation is perceived by the poster that the post is written to , than to let any percived misinfomation go unquestioned, and thearfore, the question does not constitute [pressuring a person], for if it did, it would be a condition here to absorb defamation here in order to be a disccussant.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 14:27:21
In reply to Lou's suggestion for a test for [pressuring]-5, posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 14:14:00
Friends,
The sixth test to determine if the post constitute [pressuring a poster] would be to ask:
Is the question asking for the poster that wrote the post to {identify} a spacific part of what they wrote.
If so, then the question has a valid foundation, for without the identifying of the spacific aspect of the post that was written, there could not be any valid discussion, unless one guesses correctly at what it is that they are requesting identification of, and I do not believe that we are requiered to guess at what the poster is referrring to, for if we had to guess correctly, then we could also guess incorrectly and go off the subject at hand. My expert in communication calls those type of posts, that do not identify what they are writinfg about, [sandbagging].
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 14:40:42
In reply to Re: Lou's suggestion for a test for [pressuring]-, posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 14:27:21
Friends,
The 7th aspect in my test for determining [pressuring a poster] would be to [rule out]
any poster from just invoking that they feel pressured.
A poster could say that [any] question to them would cause them to feel pressured and thearfor that could not be a valid question in a test, for if it was, then posters could discriminate against another poster by just invoking that they felt pressured, or the moderator [could], but not necesarily, coax or encorage a poster to invoke that they felt pressured, and my communication expert calls that a [witch-hunt] mentality.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 15:16:53
In reply to Lou's suggestion for a test for [pressuring]-7 » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 14:40:42
Friends,
The 8th aspect of my test to determine if a post constitutes[presuring a poster] would be to examine the post to see if it is [willfull and persistant].
The persistance part has already been written, but now let us look at [willfull].
This means that to say that one willfully posted a statement to pressue someone there must be [evidence], not specualation, or predudice against a person, that a post is willfully made to pressure a person, because it could be that there is an innocent reason why a poster made the post to someone, and I do not believe that anyone on the face of this planet has any power or ability to decern what is in another person's heart.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on April 4, 2003, at 17:14:48
In reply to Re: putting people on the spot, posted by Dr. Bob on April 4, 2003, at 11:33:49
Posted by beardedlady on April 4, 2003, at 17:37:30
In reply to Re: putting people on the spot, posted by Dr. Bob on April 4, 2003, at 11:33:49
Posted by coral on April 4, 2003, at 17:56:42
In reply to Re: putting people on the spot, posted by Dr. Bob on April 4, 2003, at 11:33:49
Posted by IsoM on April 4, 2003, at 18:14:23
In reply to Re: putting people on the spot, posted by Dr. Bob on April 4, 2003, at 11:33:49
Bob: "Well, the idea is not to pressure others. Would you consider that to be pressuring people?"
It goes beyond pressure for most people. It comes across as an insistent demand to most, or a broken record. You asked, I'm explaining as civilly as possible. Yes, I know one can simply not read (& that's what I do unless I want to be amused), but many can't seem to.
Intelligent discourse becomes impossible as there is no flow of ideas & conversation but one must constantly second guess. Try to imagine what it would be like having a conversation with someone who needed every second sentence explained in great detail (& then those details further explained). Frustrating, yes, but when continually asked for further explanations repeatedly, it becomes more than just pressure.
Posted by NikkiT2 on April 4, 2003, at 19:11:37
In reply to Re: putting people on the spot - YES » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on April 4, 2003, at 18:14:23
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 19:23:23
In reply to Re: putting people on the spot - YES » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on April 4, 2003, at 18:14:23
IsoM,
You wrote,[...I don't read unless I want to be amused...].
Are you referring to posts that have my name as the poster? If so, could you clarify your use of the phrase,{...unless I want to be amused...}as to if it is, or is not, your intention to ridicule me by writing that here? If it is not your intention to ridicule me, could you clarify , then, what is it that is in my posts, if you are referring to my posts, that is amusing? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to know that you were, or were not, intending to portray me as a person that should only be read in order to be amused and then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 20:12:09
In reply to Re: putting people on the spot - YES » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on April 4, 2003, at 18:14:23
IsoM,
You wrote,[... intellegent discorse becomes {impossible}...no flow of ideas...must guess...].
Are you saying that you agree with me on this issue, because I ask for clarification so that I could have the opportunity to respond to a statement that has the potential to be defaming or accusitive and you agree with me that discorse becomes [impossible]without clarification of such?
But if you are saying that because I ask for clairification, if that is what you are referring to here, that the request, in and of itself, makes it [impossible] to have intellegent discorse, then could you clarify how a statement that has the potential to be defaming or accusitive enhances {intellegent} discorse? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly and will not have to [guess] as to what you are referring to.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 20:25:47
In reply to Re: putting people on the spot - YES » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on April 4, 2003, at 18:14:23
IsoM,
You wrote,[...further explanations repeatedly...].
Are you saying that {my} requests for clarification constitute,[...further explanations repeatedly?...]. If so, could you cite some of these that you are saying that I posted? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to determine if you are [manufacturing a falsehood about me], which is defamation, or referring to another poster, or that there is , perhaps a case of what you wrote, and if there is, could not it be possible that the reply to my request for clarification was another statement that also needed clarification in order to have an opportunity to respond accordingly? I , in general, post that I am asking for clarification in order to have an opportunity to respond accordingly and do not remember asking another poster {again} to clarify [if they did not respond]. If you are saying that I repeatedly ask the same poster to clarify what they wrote to me , when they did not respond, please cite a reference and I will look at it and see for myself, for I remember none of such.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2003, at 21:07:03
In reply to Re: putting people on the spot - YES » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on April 4, 2003, at 18:14:23
IsoM,
You wrote,[...comes across as a...demand...or a broken record...].
Are you equating my requests for clarification to a {demend} or [broken record]? If so, could you clarify how you equate a request to be a demand? It is my understanding that a demand is dfferent from a request. If you examine my requests for clarification, you will see that there is the phrase, {if you could}, not the phrase,[you must] in my requests, and it is my understanding that {could} is stateing that the request is optionable to the poster to reply or not, and that {must} does not give that option, and I use the word,{could}, not the word {must}.
I don't want to sound like a broken record, but a request is, well, a request, and I use the same, in general, format for requesting clarification so as to be {uniform}, and not to sound like a broken record.
Lou
Posted by shar on April 4, 2003, at 22:10:32
In reply to Re: putting people on the spot - YES » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on April 4, 2003, at 18:14:23
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.